Q14 - In 1963, a young macaque

[aileenann]

I recently had a student ask me about this question, so I thought I'd post my solution on the forum

This is an assumption question. With assumption questions, I always pick an answer that supports my conclusion and that is wtihin the scope of the passage (being careful not to be too trigger happy about using the idea of scope). I do this after I've figured out the core of the argument.

Here, I'd say the core of the argument is:

The behavior of macaques changed over time -> thus they are not completely captive to their genes.

Let's look at each answer choice.

(A) is certainly relevant, but this goes against the conclusion. This would effectively point out a way that all the facts could be true but that the macaques would still be beholden to their genes.

(B) Bingo! Not only is this the opposite of (A), which makes it look really good, it makes sense that this is what missing. The author points to changes that took place in a short period of time to indicate that they were probably not genetic. This assumption makes that clear - the author is assuming or should assume that changes that occur over a short period of time are probably not genetic or at least are not necessarily genetic

(C) is not really helpful or hurtful. We might be able to make the link from "regularly" in the passage to "typical" in the answer choice, but so what. This just tells us that "typical" is a *necessary* condition to show a genetic change, but that does not mean it is a *sufficient* condition to show genetic change.

(D) is pretty extreme. And in a way it's circular. If you assume that social behavior is never genetic where's the need to prove it? Additionally, "never" is a lot stronger than we really need for this passage.

(E) is totally irrelevant. The author is not making any claims or relying on any predictions about the future. He is working off what happened in the past.



Questions or comments from forum users are always appreciated

[jrnlsn.nelson]

Thanks for the post aileenann. I see why (B) is the correct answer. Yet, I do not see how you can write off (E) so easily.

The conclusion is this:

"Thus, these macaques are able to adopt and pass on new patterns of social behavior, and are not complete captives of their genetic heritage."

For me, the portion of the conclusion that says "able to adopt and pass on" is especially important. Now, look at (E):

"The macaques' new pattern of behavior will persist over several generations."

Now apply the Assumption Negation technique (i.e. the technique that aids in solving Assumption Questions) and negate this answer choice:

"The macaques' new pattern of behavior will NOT persist over several generations."

Does that not directly attack the conclusion, and thus make (E) a contender?

[sommitra]

I might be able to help you a bit.
Your conclusion is right, but the way how the author got into this conclusion is by the observation that happened in the past & 1990. It means that the author drawed the conclusion from the facts in the past, and it doesn't really mean that this fact should be maintained as true even in the future to make his argument valid. In the answer of (E), even trying negation technique, 'will' doesn't affect any thing to something(conclusion) that was drawn from the facts based on past researches. Because the author never mentioned about any expection or persistence in the conclusion, but only the conclusion he could reach from the past observation.

Hope this help!

[uhdang]

Could you check my reasoning for eliminating D)? It is different from aileenann's post, so want to verify.

I thought of two possible reasonings, but couldn't decide with certainty, so help me out.

To start with, "social behavior" and "genetic heritage" are two elements within the conclusion, so I immediately thought this wouldn't affect premise-conclusion relationship. Afterward, I tried analyzing it and thought that this would actually Strengthen the conclusion, because being completely independent from each other would eliminate any possibility of macaque monkey's social behavior having influence from ANY genetic heritage.

Having thought this far, I thought to myself, wait a minute, what the conclusion is referring to are "being able to adopt and pass on new patterns of social behavior" and "genetic heritage", not "social behavior" and "genetic heritage." So, explaining relationship between "social behavior" and "genetic heritage" would not have any influence on the argument at all; it is out of scope.

Can't decide which is correct with certainty... help me out please.

Besides, if you could help me with elaborating what it means by "circular" from aileenann's reasoning for D).

[ohthatpatrick]

Your first idea was more correct. (D) sounds an awful lot like the conclusion.

That’s what Aileen was getting at with “circular”. Circular arguments are ones in which the conclusion merely echoes/repeats the premise.

Circular argument:
Chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream. Therefore, all other flavors of ice cream are not the best.

Circular argument:
Social behaviors of macaques are completely independent of genetic heritage. Therefore, macaques can adopt new patterns of social behavior and are not completely dependent on genetic heritage.

As you said, (D) would definitely strengthen the conclusion. You were correct to think “wait a sec, is this building any bridge between the idea in the premise and the idea in the conclusion?” Since it isn’t, it’s feels pretty dubious.

But ultimately you should be reading Necessary Assumption answers with a keen eye for extreme language, because that is usually the most powerful way of identifying wrong answers.

We can’t pick an answer that goes BEYOND the strength of how harsh / certain an author sounded.

The author’s conclusion is that macaques are ABLE to adopt new social behavior; they’re social behavior is not completely determined by their genetic heritage.

Saying that social behavior is not completely determined by genetic heritage is the same as saying “at least some social behavior is separate from genetic heritage”.

(D) is saying that “ALL social behavior is separate from genetic heritage”.

That’s stronger than anything the author committed to.

[uhdang]

So, my first reasoning is more sound than the second one although both are valid reasons. But it's even more sound to look at extreme language. Got it!

Thank you for the reply!

[Dtodaizzle]

Let's assume in the argument that the dates are not given (cross out 1963 and 1990)- would answer choice B still be valid? Could B still be valid because "the new patterns of behaviors", which also encompasses the monkeys who are now retrieving food from the hot spring, represent additional data point to support the conclusion? Would additional data points be necessary?

[ohthatpatrick]

I don't really know how to interpret that hypothetical because removing dates makes part of the stimulus contradict itself.

"A young macaque monkey was observed venturing into a hot spring ..."
"No macaques had ever been observed in the hot spring"

Furthermore, removing the ~30 year difference between 1963 and 1990 makes the "few years or decades" part of (B) completely out of scope and thus wrong.

'New patterns of behavior' does not have to mean anything presently happening or happening in the future. And the author doesn't need to assume anything about new data points.

This one example that he described, of a new pattern of behavior that emerged after a few decades, that he interprets as NON-genetic, commits him to believing (B).

Because negating (B) would say the example that he described, of a new pattern of behavior that emerged after a few decades, that he interprets as NON-genetic, is necessarily genetically pretedetermined.

Checkmate, author.

Hope this helps.